This weekend a friend showed me a video that was left on his recovered stolen laptop.

Synopsis: three black girls all wearing some form of fuscia purple playing make believe McDonalds. They even had a McDonalds theme cash register toy. Like this I guess:

And they proceeded to order a bunch of bullshit and finally the server told them the total . All the while the smallest of the three girls was staring directly at the laptop's camera for some reason.

And when the bigger girl gave the server her credit card, the server declined it. The big girl proceeded to get irate and explain that she just went ot WalMart and got her daughter's hair did and this all devolved into a (play?) fist fight that ultimately included toy bats.

I think discovery channel has jumped the shark as a whole. So sad when I grew up with educational TV instead of reality crap.

Well, it's not just Discovery. What we are seeing at the moment is the ultimate realization that all of the "educational" formats that were launched on expanded cable in the 1980s and 90s just aren't faring too well. Is this evidence of the dumbing-down of the nation, or just reflective of the increasingly narrow-margins in the cutthroat world of "specialty" network programming?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

when has it ever been about science?

It seems to me that in the first season or two, they devoted more time to concepts like the scientific method. IOW, here's this myth, we're going to show you in some level of detail how we gather data and analyze it to reach a conclusion. There was a certain element of Mr. Wizard in there, trying to at least pay lip service to how research and engineering actually work.

In recent seasons, however, it seems like that has gone away completely, and instead we get to see a lot more pretty fires and explosions, some of which are, by the teams own admission, done simply for the sake of blowing **** up. In fact, I just watched a full hour (episode 218 "Explosions A to Z") which consisted of absolutely nothing but a "look back at the greatest explosions in Mythbusters history." For reals.

Now, I don't mind the well-photographed gratuitous demolition of a cement truck from time to time, but trying to make an entire TV show out of that is only about one step removed from a whole 30 minute timeslot consisting of a static shot of a man's ***, farting.

When I was a kid I thought it was weird that some kids parents didn't let them watch TV or drink soda, now I get it. I thought that Jersey Shore was as bad as it would get, but **** like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo proved me wrong. We need more abortion doctors. I am rambling in the most sincere sense of the word.

Do you think people where always this dumb and mass media has just exposed stupidity, or is this a more recent development? Have I myself fallen victim to the intellectual decline of our civilization? Did people ask themselves these questions in the 50's? Or does the fact that I ask that question point in the opposite direction? Can an insane person question their own sanity?

Do you think people where always this dumb and mass media has just exposed stupidity, or is this a more recent development? Have I myself fallen victim to the intellectual decline of our civilization? Did people ask themselves these questions in the 50's?

Do you recall the lyric in the song "What a Wonderful World", the most popular version of which was sung by Louis Armstrong,

I hear babies cry,
I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more,
Than I'll ever know.
And I think to myself,
What a wonderful world.

Do you really think that babies today have a better or worse chance of learning much more than you ever will? Do you share that optimism regarding the educational system and the values of hard work and tough study being instilled by the parents of today?

Or do you realize that mom is no longer raising the kids, but is instead dumping them at a daycare where a minimum-wage-earning-dropout can teach them from her own repertoire of values, responsibility, and love? But hey, mom doesn't want to have a vehicle more than five years old, wants a coach purse and matching designer shoes, wants a career of her own because her friends will look down on her if she stays home with the kids.

Everybody wants to pay lipservice to how important their kids are to them until the rubber meets the road. The reality is most are far too selfish to put their children first. And then you reap what you sow.

Do you recall the lyric in the song "What a Wonderful World", the most popular version of which was sung by Louis Armstrong,

I hear babies cry,
I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more,
Than I'll ever know.
And I think to myself,
What a wonderful world.

Do you really think that babies today have a better or worse chance of learning much more than you ever will? Do you share that optimism regarding the educational system and the values of hard work and tough study being instilled by the parents of today?

Or do you realize that mom is no longer raising the kids, but is instead dumping them at a daycare where a minimum-wage-earning-dropout can teach them from her own repertoire of values, responsibility, and love? But hey, mom doesn't want to have a vehicle more than five years old, wants a coach purse and matching designer shoes, wants a career of her own because her friends will look down on her if she stays home with the kids.

Everybody wants to pay lipservice to how important their kids are to them until the rubber meets the road. The reality is most are far too selfish to put their children first. And then you reap what you sow.

I don't know, people use media for different things. I use the internet to look something up that I'm uninformed with, I couldn't have done that 20 years ago. Others have to check facebook once every five minutes, otherwise they feel like they are missing out.

The whole thing about daycare worker raising peoples kids reminds me of something I read about attachment disorders in babies in Russian orphanages, I want to say the study was done in the 50's. Cant remimber much about it though, anyone know the one I'm thinking of?

Having recently been through 13 weeks of state mandated classes to qualify to adopt a child out of foster care, I cannot say I am familiar with that study, but am familiar with several different attachment disorders. Since you bring it up, the behaviors of many disruptive and ADHD children from intact homes closely mimic some of the attachment disorder symptoms. It makes sense that children would be similarly effected by the separation and the emotional neglect of being in daycare during some of their most vulnerable formative years.

Do you already own the vehicle in question, and posses a valid out-of-state title?

I've never had to get anything notarized- just make an appointment with the BMV and show up with the existing title.

About the only real gotcha is if you have purchased the car from a seller out of state and it has less than 7,500 miles on it. In that case you're fucked. Otherwise, shouldn't have any issues.

I'm buying (or trying to) from a private seller in San Diego, but I'm working whenever the DMV is open. I could make it over there myself sooner or later, but since the seller lives an hour away and has his own stuff to do getting him and me at the dmv at the same time is practically imposable. Is there a way to transfer the title without both of us being at the DMV?

Is there a way to transfer the title without both of us being at the DMV?

Of course, you don't need the seller to be present. I don't think I've ever done that, in fact.

On the bottom half of the title, there is an area for the owner to sign, indicating that he is selling the vehicle to you. Two spaces, actually. One where he releases all ownership interest in the vehicle, and then another where he certifies the odometer reading. Both of those need to be filled out.

Then, on the back of the title, there's an area marked "application for transfer by new owner." You fill that out yourself.

Once that's done, just bring the title to the BMV and they will take it from you along with the appropriate fees, issue you a temporary title, and then in a couple of weeks your new official title will arrive from Sacramento.

Of course, you don't need the seller to be present. I don't think I've ever done that, in fact.

On the bottom half of the title, there is an area for the owner to sign, indicating that he is selling the vehicle to you. Two spaces, actually. One where he releases all ownership interest in the vehicle, and then another where he certifies the odometer reading. Both of those need to be filled out.

Then, on the back of the title, there's an area marked "application for transfer by new owner." You fill that out yourself.

Once that's done, just bring the title to the BMV and they will take it from you along with the appropriate fees, issue you a temporary title, and then in a couple of weeks your new official title will arrive from Sacramento.

No need for any notaries or anything- they're very trusting.

Thanks Perez, things are done very differently in Ohio. There the buyer and seller have to be at the BMV and get **** all sorts of notarized.

People smoken' that reefer in public, 36 packs of bud light, them gays getten' married, people wearin' all sourts of sandels in pubic, transfers of titles not needin' notarizin'; this California sure is a awfuller strange place